How to reconcile biological and social evolution with the Bible?

[The Barbarian]

But that's not what God said. He said Adam would die the day he ate from that tree. So that's what we have to go with. And Adam lived on physically for many years thereafter. If God tells the truth, the death was not a physical one.

If we completely ignore the historical context and insist on reading it with modern eyes, maybe.

Words mean things. If you start deciding that you don't believe what the Bible says, when is that going to stop?

How would you convert that to a figurative story?

Adam died the day that he ate of the tree because God ceased sustaining his life, so he was immediately stripped of immortality and his mortality was guaranteed.

But that's not what God said, is it? He said Adam would die the day he ate from the tree, not that he would cease to be immortal. In fact, the Bible never says that Adam was ever immortal. Indeed, God expresses concern that he might become so, and makes sure that it couldn't happen.

 

[Fervent]

But that's not what God said. He said Adam would die the day he ate from that tree. So that's what we have to go with. And Adam lived on physically for many years thereafter. If God tells the truth, the death was not a physical one.

Again, you're simply insisting on reading it a way that is out of keeping with how it would historically have been read. Essentially building a case on a technicality that is entirely understandable in a way that doesn't require an unnatural reading.

Words mean things. If you start deciding that you don't believe what the Bible says, when is that going to stop?

Words only mean things within a specific context, and the context they are found in changes how they are understood. The Genesis narrative must be understood within the context of the ANE literature that it stood beside, in which there are obvious parallel stories that are more explicit about the punishment being a loss of immortality. Importing a modern context onto the Bible isn't dealing with the meaning of the words, but changing that meaning for modern conveniences.

How would you convert that to a figurative story?

I don't bother converting it to a figurative story, because it's not presented as figurative. There may be allegorical uses of it, but it's mythic rather than figurative and the historical veracity of it is open to question. But evolution presents a real problem for a literal understanding, and those who insist on an evolutionary history tend to fudge the Bible to make a square peg fit a round hole.

But that's not what God said, is it? He said Adam would die the day he ate from the tree, not that he would cease to be immortal. In fact, the Bible never says that Adam was ever immortal. Indeed, God expresses concern that he might become so, and makes sure that it couldn't happen.

Again, this is a matter of historic context. The theme of eating a forbidden item and losing immortality was a common mythic explanation for why we die in the ANE, with at least 3 clear parallels. The Sumerian myth in particular is illuminating, because it is about as explicit as it can be about the punishment for eating the forbidden items leading to a loss of the gods "life-giving gaze." So while the literal words in modern Bibles may imply that Adam should have fallen dead immediately, the historic context and how it has historically been understood implies that the actual punishment was that God ceased sustaining their lives and they were condemned to wear out and die as a consequence of that severance.

 

[The Barbarian]

Again, you're simply insisting on reading it a way that is out of keeping with how it would historically have been read.

No, I'm just taking a plain reading of what God said. I get that your new doctrines require that you change God's words to mean something else.
Not "you will die in the day" but "someday you will die." I see why you need this, but it's just not there.

Words only mean things within a specific context, and the context they are found in changes how they are understood. The Genesis narrative must be understood within the context of the ANE literature that it stood beside, in which there are obvious parallel stories that are more explicit about the punishment being a loss of immortality.

Sounds like a lot of word salad to deny what God said very simply and plainly. Why not just accept it His way?

But evolution presents a real problem for a literal understanding, and those who insist on an evolutionary history tend to fudge the Bible to make a square peg fit a round hole.

I notice that those who say so, never come up with anything more than the sort of vague denial you just gave us.

The theme of eating a forbidden item and losing immortality was a common mythic explanation for why we die in the ANE, with at least 3 clear parallels. The Sumerian myth in particular is illuminating, because it is about as explicit as it can be about the punishment for eating the forbidden items leading to a loss of the gods "life-giving gaze."

So "it's literal, unless it says something I don't like, and then it's not literal."

So while the literal words in modern Bibles may imply that Adam should have fallen dead immediately

Well, that's a testable claim. Show us that. After all:

KJV:
Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.”

From the Vulgate:
Genesis 2:17 de ligno autem scientiae boni et mali ne comedas in quocumque enim die comederis ex eo morte morieris
(But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on whatever day you eat from it you will die)

I don't see how anyone could consider them to be "modern" translations.

 

[Fervent]

No, I'm just taking a plain reading of what God said. I get that your new doctrines require that you change God's words to mean something else.
Not "you will die in the day" but "someday you will die." I see why you need this, but it's just not there.

Nope, you're playing a game with an English technicality and completely ignoring the overall context of the passage.

Sounds like a lot of word salad to deny what God said very simply and plainly. Why not just accept it His way?

I accept it as presented, which is in its historic and literary context. Not by holding it to modern conventions.

I notice that those who say so, never come up with anything more than the sort of vague denial you just gave us.

It's quite obvious that it presents a problem since you've resorted to playing games and claiming that the death that came as a consequence of Adam's disobedience was something other than death.

So "it's literal, unless it says something I don't like, and then it's not literal."

Nope, it's just not woodenly literal and follows conventions of literature that is its contemporaries rather than modern literary conventions.

Well, that's a testable claim. Show us that. After all:

KJV:
Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.”

From the Vulgate:
Genesis 2:17 de ligno autem scientiae boni et mali ne comedas in quocumque enim die comederis ex eo morte morieris
(But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on whatever day you eat from it you will die)

I don't see how anyone could consider them to be "modern" translations.

The issue is that neither of those are Hebrew, and the conventions for Hebrew phrases vs English(or Latin in the case of the Vulgate) are worlds apart. You're basing your understanding of what it says on a technical-grammatical language, where words have a more or less fixed meaning. Hebrew operates as a highly contextual and pictorial language, where the same words can be used to convey massively different meanings depending on the context they are found in. So focusing narrowly upon word choice is unnatural to the original language, and is based in modern language conventions. So while the word selection for translations may give an impression of immediacy, the semantic range of the Hebrew is far more open.

 

[eleos1954]

We can answer that simply by asking "what death did Jesus save us from?" If He came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all die someday. He saved us from the spiritual death Adam experienced when he sinned.

I don't see that evolution can tell us any more about God's attributes than gravity can. Although Paul is right in saying that we can learn about God's attributes and majesty by the things He has made, I don't think evolution is more instructive to that end than anything else in nature.

Why is the Bible unclear on exactly when humans began? I'm supposing that it doesn't matter to our salvation. If God thought it was important to that end, He would have been more specific, I think.

It's difficult sometimes to know whether a specific text is figurative or literal. And I can't find such a case where it matters. Focusing on that question seems to lead us away from the message God is giving us.

He saved us from both spiritual and physical death (2nd death)

The bible is somewhat clear of about when humans began .... tracked through keeping track of the genealogy from Adam and Eve forward. It's around 6,000 years or so ... no we don't know exactly

Either one believes creation as stated in the bible or believes in happen chance. There aren't any other reasonable beliefs as to how mankind came into being.

The age of the earth assumes that the six days of creation presented in Genesis 1 were literal 24-hour periods and that there are no gaps in the chronology or genealogy of Genesis. The years listed in the genealogies of Genesis are then added to get an approximate time from creation to certain Old Testament figures. Using this method, we arrive at an age for Earth of approximately 6,000 years.

I don't think it's a salvation issue ..... if it were then most certainly there would be a way to nail it down in the Word of God.

 

[The Barbarian]

He saved us from both spiritual and physical death (2nd death)

God makes it clear to Adam that the death is spiritual. If it was physical, Adam would have died physically in the day he ate from the tree. No way to get around that.

The bible is somewhat clear of about when humans began .... tracked through keeping track of the genealogy from Adam and Eve forward. It's around 6,000 years or so

Since the Bible has contradictory genealogies of Jesus, that's not a valid assumption.

Either one believes creation as stated in the bible or believes in happen chance.

Of course, one can believe creation as stated in the Bible, or in the YE revision of the Bible. But as to man's evolution, Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance.

The age of the earth assumes that the six days of creation presented in Genesis 1 were literal 24-hour periods and that there are no gaps in the chronology or genealogy of Genesis.

Huge and unprovable assumptions contradicted by both evidence and by scripture itself.

I don't think it's a salvation issue ..... if it were then most certainly there would be a way to nail it down in the Word of God.

Exactly. It's not clearly stated in scripture, because it doesn't matter to one's salvation.

 

[eleos1954]

God makes it clear to Adam that the death is spiritual. If it was physical, Adam would have died physically in the day he ate from the tree. No way to get around that.


Since the Bible has contradictory genealogies of Jesus, that's not a valid assumption.


Of course, one can believe creation as stated in the Bible, or in the YE revision of the Bible. But as to man's evolution, Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance.


Huge and unprovable assumptions contradicted by both evidence and by scripture itself.


Exactly. It's not clearly stated in scripture, because it doesn't matter to one's salvation.

God makes it clear to Adam that the death is spiritual. If it was physical, Adam would have died physically in the day he ate from the tree. No way to get around that.

The plan of salvation was already in place before creation.

Since the Bible has contradictory genealogies of Jesus, that's not a valid assumption.

The bible don't contradict itself.

If it appears that way then further study is needed.

The Genesis account is to be believed .... or not.

We did not evolve ... we were created.

 

[The Barbarian]

The bible don't contradict itself.

Correct. But if we take those genealogies literally, it does. Hence they were not meant to be literal. Likewise, the contradictions claimed to exist in Genesis don't exist, if we don't take them literally.

The Genesis account is to be believed .... or not

The problem is, literalists don't believe it God's way.

We did not evolve ... we were created.

We were created. It's just that creationists don't like the way He did it. Natural processes produced our bodies. God's immediate action produced our souls.

Set your pride aside, and let it be God's way.

 

[eleos1954]

Correct. But if we take those genealogies literally, it does. Hence they were not meant to be literal. Likewise, the contradictions claimed to exist in Genesis don't exist, if we don't take them literally.

The problem is, literalists don't believe it God's way.


We were created. It's just that creationists don't like the way He did it. Natural processes produced our bodies. God's immediate action produced our souls.

Set your pride aside, and let it be God's way.

Has nothing to do with pride ... Genesis describes literal creation ... believe it ... or don't

a soul is a person .... not some intangible spirit of some kind.

The use of the word “soul” is speaking to someone’s complete identity. The Bible uses these terms as a way of closely identifying with an individual—it’s not referring to a separate entity, life force, or energy.

 

[The Barbarian]

Has nothing to do with pride ...

Seems that it does. Many people are too fond of their own reasoning and beliefs to accept the way God created the diversity of life on Earth.

Genesis describes literal creation

But it doesn't give us the way it happened. The Earth brought forth life. No details. God creates different species. Doesn't say how. Creationists are willing to believe that He created living things, but they don't approve of the way He does it.

a soul is a person .... not some intangible spirit of some kind.

Well, God says that man is of the Earth, like other living things, but then He breathes into him a living soul. I think it was C. S. Lewis who observed that you have a body, but you are a soul.

The Bible uses these terms as a way of closely identifying with an individual—it’s not referring to a separate entity, life force, or energy.

I'll go with God's opinion on that. Sorry.

 

[Diamond7]

evolution is a fact

The Bible is truth and does not change. Facts change and have a short life.

 

[Diamond7]

Genesis describes literal creation ... believe it ... or don't

In the history of biblical interpretation, four major types of hermeneutics have emerged: the literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical.
And said in Matthew "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

I think He is referring to a fifth grader. There use to be a program on TV are you as smart as a fifth grader. For a lot of people the answer was no, they are not able to function at that level of understanding.

 

[eleos1954]

In the history of biblical interpretation, four major types of hermeneutics have emerged: the literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical.
And said in Matthew "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

I think He is referring to a fifth grader. There use to be a program on TV are you as smart as a fifth grader. For a lot of people the answer was no, they are not able to function at that level of understanding.

If one don't believe God as creator as written in Genesis then there is no real foundation to believe anything.

A person don't have to be biblically savvy ... all have a conscious to one degree or another.

He was using the term/instance as an example of *humility

Matthew 18:1–4
The Greatest in the Kingdom​

About that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?”
2 Jesus called a little child to him and put the child among them. 3 Then he said, “I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven. 4 So anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Childlike faith is a picture of humility and trust and that should be our relationship with God.

*Humility

noun
a modest or low view of one's own importance; humbleness.

“Who is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?”

That was the point ... they were not being humble

 

[Diamond7]

If one don't believe God as creator as written in Genesis then there is no real foundation to believe anything.

We grow and we learn, we gain understanding and knowledge.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Bible is truth and does not change. Facts change and have a short life.

Not so far. Evolution continues, and we still see it at work. The Bible is truth, but YE revisions of the Bible are not.

 

[Diamond7]

Evolution continues

Evolution continues to come up with a new theory as the old one become falsified.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution continues to come up with a new theory as the old one become falsified.

Evolution is an observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the scientific theory that explains it. Evolution is just what it is, and doesn't change. The theory is continuously revised.

But you were really misled by that story. Darwin's theory has four main points. Tell us which of them have been falsified, with your evidence for it.

So far, every creationist I've ever asked that question has declined to answer. You might be the first to step up and do it. You're on.

 

[Diamond7]

So far, every creationist I've ever asked that question has declined to answer.

What they say Darwin's said and what he really said is not the same thing.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is an observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the scientific theory that explains it. Evolution is just what it is, and doesn't change. The theory is continuously revised.

But you were really misled by that story. Darwin's theory has four main points. Tell us which of them have been falsified, with your evidence for it.

So far, every creationist I've ever asked that question has declined to answer. You might be the first to step up and do it. You're on.

What they say Darwin's said and what he really said is not the same thing.

I didn't really expect you to do it. I feel like Diogenes, looking for a courageous creationist to step up and take the challenge.

But since you say they say different things, for partial credit, show which of Darwin's four points are not part of evolutionary theory today. Creationists never answer that one, either, but maybe this time I got lucky. You're on.

 

[Diamond7]

You're on.

Natural selection did not explain the evolution of terrestrial animals from aquatic forms.

Science can only give us the best explanation. It may not even be a good explanation but it is the best they have to offer.